Shaykh Ahmad Hendricks

In recent years, the Iraq conflict, the
Afghanistan-Soviet war, the Intifadah and the Gulf Crisis have all highlighted the
necessity for Muslims to understand what exactly Jihad is and how it works.

Jihad is an emotional
topic for Muslims who, as the 90’s develop into an era of conflict, poverty and
deprivation, have had to look hard at where they must stand. In almost every corner of the
globe - and in our own backyards - we stare issues in the face that need an educated
Islamic application if they are to be resolved at all. It is all very well shouting "Allahu
Akbar" and firing shots into the air when what actually needs to be accomplished
is communication and tolerance. Islam is not a rhetorical religion,it is based on unity,
love and rational action.

Soon after the Prophet’s (may the
peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) death, Islam radiated outwardly from its earthly
centre, the Ka’aba, implacable symbol of the faith. Jihad was the dynamic
of this expansion. Outwardly; it embodied the power of Islam against error and falsehood
while inwardly; it represented the means of spiritual awakening and of transcending the
self. Referring to this, the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)
said while returning from battle: "We are now returning from the lesser Jihad
to the greater Jihad, the Jihad against the self".

The means of the initial Jihad, the sword, was
adopted and internalised by Islam as the charismatic symbol of sacred warfare. It also
symbolised the qualities of strength and vigilance, indispensable for the spiritual
wayfarer in his quest for illumination and the beatific vision. This symbolism deeply
inspired Muslim artists and craftsmen. In calligraphy, for example, one finds the
sword-motif embossed in gold and silver as the initial letter of the Shahadah. Historical
evidence and current practice indicate that the sword formed a central feature of the
important cultural events of the Muslim world. Folk-dancers sporting gleaming blades as
they moved and chanted to rhythmic Sufic tunes is an example of this.

The western visitor to the Islamic world in earlier times
was evidently terrified by the scenes he witnessed. The imaginations of travellers and
authors were inspired and mostly tormented. The images they absorbed there, formed the
substance of the tales they told to their equally shocked compatriots. The symbolism of
this spontaneous theatre seem to have escaped the Europeans. Instead of appreciating this
as a cultural expression of a unique spirituality it was seen as a threat to Europe
itself. This is well exemplified in the tales of Marco Polo and Washington Irving. Along
with this cultural negativism the massive defeats suffered by the Crusaders at the hands
of the Muslims during the Crusader Wars, further compounded and accelerated the
demonisation and stereotyping of Islam. The negative results of these initial contacts
between Islam and the West can even now be seen in western perceptions of Islam.

The critics of Islam, however, insist that Islam and
Muslims are openly hostile and intolerant towards communities other than their own. They
refer to the Qur’anic verses that exhort the believers to fight the infidels, they point
to the battles of early Islam and the eventual confrontation between the Crusaders and the
Saracens, and now, the stereotype of the Arab "terrorist".

It must be noted that many Orientalists might object to
this characterisation of their views on the question. Indeed many of them subscribe to
more nuanced positions. More recent scholarship has completely abandoned the emotionally
charged vocabulary of earlier Orientalism. It remains true, however, that Islam is still
imagined as threatening, fanatical, violent and alien by significant sections of the
worlds media. In formulating an answer to all of this it is crucial to focus on a general
definition of Islam, so as not to fall into any misunderstanding about Jihad and its place
within the Din. The common expression that Islam is a "way of life" has
become hackneyed to the point where we can well do without it. Islam is more accurately
described as "the total human condition guided by the Prophet Muhammad (may the peace
and blessings of Allah be upon him) into an equilibrium where man conforms to the nature
of things".

This latter statement must be carefully understood if we
are to avoid the superficial moralising or equally misleading literalism that
characterises much contemporary thinking about Islam. It is far from desirable to simply
quote, as an apparent show of understanding, scriptural support for this or that personal
opinion we may have about a particular subject. Neither is it enough to use Qur’anic or
Prophetic texts without adequate knowledge of the human situation and cultural milieu in
which they were revealed and first applied. In other words, context and circumstance of
Quranic revelation and Hadith are crucial in coming to terms with Jihad. It
is an error to judge Islam and Muslims in the light of the kind of "Jihad"
that has fallen victim to ideological tendencies. The critic also has to be wary of the
interpretation of "Jihad" projected, and sometimes imposed, by the
selective "religious reformism" so rampant today. They ignore central aspects of
Islam’s intellectual heritage and selectively repress important figures.

It cannot be over-emphasised that Islam upholds the values
of reason, balance and responsibility in the conduct of its worldly affairs. There is
nothing arbitrary about its legal provisions relating to matters of war, peace,
international relationships and the rule of law. In this area there is considerable
agreement between Islamic law and the legal systems currently practised throughout the
world. In addition to the real possibility that these legal systems where profoundly
influenced by the legal heritage of Islam, this commonality can be explained by the fact
that the protection and endorsement of basic human rights form the cornerstone of Islamic
legislation. The international community has come to agree, through the institution of the
United Nations, on a body of human rights and interests which Islam has always endorsed.
This ought not to surprise anyone if the basic realism, rationality and pragmatism of
Islamic law is recognised.

This being said, let us now consider the nature of Jihad
more fully as it appears in the history and law of Islam. Now Jihad, which in
Arabic means "to strive for some objective", and in the technical usage of
Islamic law mean "the declaration of war against belligerent and aggressive
non-Muslim powers or against fellow Muslim transgressors and tyrants", is not a
hap-hazard decision taken by anybody. There is a principle in Islamic jurisprudence which
states that the actions of the leader must be guided by the interests of the people and
that the interests of the collectivity has, in some cases, precedence over the interests
of the individual.

The ruler is completely answerable to the people and their
legal apparatus, the most important representatives of whom are the scholars. The position
of the law is that only when it can be reasonably proven that; 1) there are aggressive
designs against Islam and; 2) there are concerted efforts to eject Muslims from their
legally acquired property and; 3) that military campaigns are being launched to eradicate
them, can a leader declare and execute the provisions of Jihad.

According to the scholars the Imam (political
leader in this case) has the power

to ratify peace treaties if they are consistent with the
interests of the Muslims. Conscription has to be confined to young mean of sound health on
condition that they have parental permission to engage in hostilities. The exception is
where the enemy has already entered the borders of the Muslim state in which case Jihad
becomes unconditionally incumbent on every able man. Naturally every community has the
right to self-defence and in the case of Islam, where religion is the primary dimension of
human existence, war in defence of the Ummah becomes a religious act. A lack of
understanding of this quality of Islam, its non-secularism, has also contributed
considerably to the fear that when Islam talks about war it means going to war to convert.
This might be true in other cultures but Islam must be allowed to speak for itself.

Jihad and Islamic Propagation

So the other aspect of Jihad that must be briefly
looked at is its role in Islamic da’wah (propagation). The question often asked
is whether Islam condones and teaches the forced and armed conversion of non-Muslims. This
is the image sometimes projected by western scholars and as any Muslim scholar will tell
you is seriously flawed. The Quran clearly states that "there is no compulsion in
religion, the path of guidance being clear of error". In this verse, the word "rushd"
or "path of guidance" refers to the entire domain of human life, not just
to the rites and theology of Islam. There is no debate about the fact that pre-Islamic
Arabia was a misguided society dominated by tribalism and a blind obedience to custom. The
clarity of Islam by contrast and its emphasis on reason and rational proofs excluded any
need to impose it by force. The verse is a clear indication that the Quran is strictly
opposed to the use of compulsion in religious faith.

In another verse the Quran states: "Allah does not
forbid you from those who do not remove you from your homes (by force) and who do not
fight you because of your religion, that you act righteously towards them ...".
The reference in this verse is to the non-Muslims in general.

This verse mentions a fundamental principle of Islam
regarding Muslim/Non-Muslim relationships. Muslims are enjoined to act righteously towards
members of other faiths except in two circumstances; firstly, if they dispossess Muslims
of their legitimate land-rights, and; secondly, if they engage in hostilities towards
Muslims because of their Din with a clear intention to destroy it. Beyond these
eventualities, according to the implied meanings of this verse, there exists no valid
reason to hold any hostility towards them. The idea, often postulated in the media that
Islam is hostile to non-Muslims because they are non-Muslims, is arrant nonsense.

It is evident from the Quran and other sources that the
armed struggle against the polytheists was legislated in the context of specific
circumstances. They were:

the persistent refusal of the Makkan leadership (the
Prophet being in Madina at the time) to allow the peaceful propagation of Islam

the persecution of Muslims at Makkah continuing unabated
triggering off an armed insurrection against Qurayshite interests in the Hejaz

the Makkans themselves starting off military campaigns
against the Muslims at Madinah with the sole objective of eradicating Islam

key security pledges being abrogated unilaterally by a
number of tribes allied to the Nabi (may the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him),
forcing him into a vulnerable position.

The picture that emerges here is that the command to fight
was given in relation too specific conditions. The declaration of war is not an arbitrary
act at all. A further implication here, as the Hanafiyyah in fact argue, is that
war was declared by the Prophet as the Imam, and as such no one else can
legitimately declare Jihad except the Imam or head of an Islamic State. The duty
lies squarely with the religious/political leadership to determine whether the conditions
for Jihad exists and give the appropriate judgement.

In later times, the Muslims engaged in warfare to
establish the "Pax Islamica" or Islamic Order. The legal and political order
must flow from the divine imperative (Quran, Sunnah, etc.). It alone guarantees the rights
of every individual by keeping in check all the dark psychic tendencies of man and so
preventing him from indulging in anti-social behaviours from political aggression right
down to the commonest criminal act. No reliable evidence exists that they wanted to impose
the specific rites and beliefs of Islam. The history of both Spain and India is concrete
proof of this.

Jihad Against Muslims?

Another point that must be considered relates to the
declaration of Jihad against Muslim tyrants. Quran refers to this in Surah
Hujarat:

‘If two parties among the Believers fall into quarrel
make peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds (baghat) against
the other, then fight all of you against the one that transgresses until he complies then
make peace between them with justice and be fair ...".

Scholars have traditionally included this joint action
against a Muslim transgressor (qital al-bughat) in the definition of Jihad.
The important phrase in the verse is "transgress beyond bounds" or the Arabic
word "baghy". What then, it may be asked, constitutes excessive and
unjustifiable behaviour towards fellow Muslims? An even more fundamental question may be
posed here, namely: is it acceptable to assume systematic hostility against a fellow
Muslim? The quoted verse seems adequate scriptural proof that this is allowed in Muslim
law if this fellow Muslim "transgresses beyond bounds"..

To summarise the implications of this verse - if
hostilities break out between two Muslim groups within one state or between two Muslim
states, we have one of two possible scenarios. In the first place if atrocities are
committed by both sides against one another, a vigorous effort must be made to initiate a
peace process with the goal of achieving cessation of hostilities and a just peace.
However, if the two parties persist in making war and fail to come to a fair settlement,
action must be taken against both of them. In the second place, if one side commits
atrocities against the other and breaks all Islamic limits in matters of war, Muslims must
unite against the perpetrator of aggression. In this respect the Geneva Convention, which
slaps an international ban on chemical and biological warfare and deals with the fair and
just treatment of prisoners of war, should enjoy wide support in the Muslims world.

Talking about internal dissension, Imam Al-Qurtubi in his
commentary on the Quran says that if an armed insurrection or rebellion (al-khuruj min
ta’ah al-imam) breaks out against a just authority (malik ‘adil), and the
aggressive party has no basis for their actions on moral grounds, it becomes the duty of
Muslims - led by the Imam - to stamp out the offending action. It is apparent from
Al-Qurtubi’s analysis that there are two conditions which together justify a joint
Muslim response against a rebellion within their own midst, firstly, that theImam
himself must be just, and secondly, that the rebellious party has no moral grounds for its
actions. A fair question however has to be asked here. How do we characterise the
resistance against an unjust political leadership? If the ordinary people have strong
moral grounds to fight against and even overthrow a repressive and exploitative ruling
class, is this Jihad in the technical sense?

A key to answering this question is the fact that the
Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) only engaged in Jihad
after he became the effective head-of-state of al-Madinah and the Muslims. Jihad is
therefore the preserve of the Imam of the Muslims. No one else declares Jihad in
the technical shar’i sense. Armed resistance by the downtrodden of a country is
armed resistance and comes under the principle of nusrah al-madhlum or assisting
the oppressed. The reward for this kind of activity is well-known. It is not however a Jihad
in the technical sense.

So properly speaking Jihad, in the case of internal
dissension, only occurs when these two conditions - a just Imam fighting
unjustifiable insurrection - are met and the Muslims fight together with the Imam
against the offending parties. In Islam allegiance and obedience to a just authority is
obligatory. It must be noted also that rebellions against authority and especially
political authority simply for the sake of rebellion have no place in the concept of Jihad.
In this age of relativism the spirit of rebellion seems to have penetrated every layer of
society. Islam and its principles cannot be made the hand-maiden of these cultural trends.

In some of the contemporary "Islamic" groups,
Jihad is even adapted to Marxist or Socialist concepts of class revolt aimed at
overthrowing statal authority. In the often fervently materialistic milieu of political
and revolutionary ideologies, Islam is inevitably reduced to nothing more than a social
philosophy. This reductionism simply amounts to an abysmal misunderstanding of the
essential function of Islam, which is to turn the "face" of the human receptacle
away from the world of disharmony and illusion to the tranquillity and silence of Divine
awareness and vision. Inward Jihad, as we alluded to at the beginning of this
essay, has a key role to play in this respect.